Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preventing parastomal hernia with modified stapled mesh stoma reinforcement technique (SMART) in patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer: a case–control study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Comment to this article was published on 05 April 2018

Abstract

Purpose

Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication of an abdominal wall stoma. Surgical repairs have high complication and recurrence rates. Several different techniques have been suggested to prevent parastomal hernia during stoma creation. The aim of the present case–control study was to evaluate the efficacy of modified Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) for prevention of parastomal hernia compared with conventional colostomy formation in patients who underwent open or laparoscopic rectal resection and end colostomy for cancer.

Methods and materials

Between January 2014 and May 2016, all consecutive patients who underwent open or laparoscopic resection and end colostomy for primary or recurrent rectal cancer were identified from a prospectively collected database. Since January 2014, one surgeon in our team has routinely offered modified SMART procedure to all patients who are candidates for permanent terminal colostomy. In the SMART group patients, while creating an end colostomy, we placed a standard polypropylene mesh in the retromuscular position, fixed and cut the mesh by firing a 31- or 33-mm-diameter circular stapler and constructed the stoma. In the control group, a stoma was created conventionally by a longitudinal or transverse incision of the rectus abdominis sheath sufficiently large for the colon to pass through.

Results

Twenty-nine patients underwent parastomal hernia prophylaxis with modified SMART and 38 patients underwent end-colostomy formation without prophylaxis (control group). Groups were similar in terms of age, sex and underlying conditions predisposing to herniation. Median follow-up time is 27 (range 12–41) months. Nineteen patients (28.4%) developed parastomal herniation. In the SMART group, 4 patients (13.8%) developed parastomal herniation which is significantly lower than the control group in which 15 patients (39.5%) developed parastomal herniation (p = 0.029). We did not observe mesh infection, stenosis, erosion or fistulation in the SMART group. One patient in the control group underwent surgical correction of stoma stricture, another patient underwent surgery for stoma prolapse and four patients underwent surgery for parastomal herniation.

Conclusion

New systemic reviews and meta-analysis support parastomal hernia prevention with the use of a prophylactic mesh. Until more evidence is available, prophylactic mesh should be routinely offered to all patients undergoing permanent stoma formation. SMART is easy to use, safe and effective for paracolostomy hernia prophylaxis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pearl RK (1989) Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 13:569–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA (2003) Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 90:784–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tam KW, Wei PL, Kuo LJ, Wu CH (2010) Systematic review of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. World J Surg 34:2723–2729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wijeyekoon SP, Gurusamy K, El-Gendy K, Chan CL (2010) Prevention of parastomal herniation with biologic/composite prosthetic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 211:637–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Israelsson LA (2008) Parastomal hernias. Surg Clin North Am 88:113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansson BM, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS, Groenewoud HM, Buyne OR, de Hingh IH, Bleichrodt RP (2012) Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg 255:685–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jänes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA (2009) Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized study. World J Surg 33:118–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brandsma HT, Hansson BM, Aufenacker TJ, van Geldere D, Lammeren FM, Mahabier C, Makai P, Steenvoorde P, de Vries Reilingh TS, Wiezer MJ, de Wilt JH, Bleichrodt RP, Rosman C, Dutch Prevent Study Group (2017) Prophylactic mesh placement during formation of an end-colostomy reduces the rate of parastomal hernia: short-term results of the Dutch PREVENT-trial. Ann Surg 265:663–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lambrecht JR, Larsen SG, Reiertsen O, Vaktskjold A, Julsrud L, Flatmark K (2015) Prophylactic mesh at end-colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis 17:O191–O197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang S, Wang W, Zhu B, Song G, Jiang C (2016) Efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 40:2528–2536

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cross AJ, Buchwald PL, Frizelle FA, Eglinton TW (2017) Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 104:179–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. López-Cano M, Brandsma HT, Bury K, Hansson B, Kyle-Leinhase I, Alamino JG, Muysoms F (2017) Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after end colostomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia 21:177–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chapman SJ, Wood B, Drake TM, Young N, Jayne DG (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia. Dis Colon Rectum 60:107–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams NS, Nair R, Bhan C (2011) Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART)—a procedure to prevent parastomal herniation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(2):169

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Londono-Schimmer EE, Leong AP, Phillips RK (1994) Life table analysis of stomal complications following colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 37:916–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shellito PC (1998) Complications of abdominal stoma surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1562–1572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellis H, Gajraj H, George CD (1983) Incisional hernias: when do they occur? Br J Surg 70:290–291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Dijk SM, Timmermans L, Deerenberg EB, Lamme B, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2015) Parastomal hernia: impact on quality of life? World J Surg 39:2595–2601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hotouras A, Murphy J, Thaha M, Chan CL (2013) The persistent challenge of parastomal herniation: a review of the literature and future developments. Colorectal Dis 15:e202–e214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Horgan K, Hughes LE (1986) Para-ileostomy hernia: failure of a local repair technique. Br J Surg 73(6):439–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Futaba K, West Midlands Research Collaborative (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. World J Surg 36:973–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Williams NS, Hotouras A, Bhan C, Murphy J, Chan CL (2015) A case-controlled pilot study assessing the safety and efficacy of the Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) in reducing the incidence of parastomal herniation. Hernia 19:949–954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ng ZQ, Tan P, Theophilus M (2017) Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) in the prevention of parastomal hernia: a single-centre experience. Hernia 21(3):469–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Cathel Kerr, PhD, from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Dokuz Eylul University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey

    A. E. Canda, C. Terzi, C. Agalar, T. Egeli & C. Arslan

  2. Department of Radiodiagnostics, Dokuz Eylul University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey

    C. Altay & F. Obuz

Authors
  1. A. E. Canda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Terzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Agalar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Egeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Altay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. Obuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. E. Canda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

AEC declares no conflict of interest. CT declares no conflict of interest. CA declares no conflict of interest. TE declares no conflict of interest. CA declares no conflict of interest. CA declares no conflict of interest. FO declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional research and ethics committee (Dokuz Eylul University, 2807-GOA).

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Informed consent

Considering the design of our study, patient consent was not required.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Video 1. Parastomal hernia prophylaxis by SMART technique in a male patient who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced rectal cancer. (WMV 53919 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Canda, A.E., Terzi, C., Agalar, C. et al. Preventing parastomal hernia with modified stapled mesh stoma reinforcement technique (SMART) in patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer: a case–control study. Hernia 22, 379–384 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1723-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1723-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation